• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Wikipedia a reliable source?

Is Wikipedia a reliable source?

  • Total voters
    58
TheGirlNextDoor

TheGirlNextDoor


DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
20,027
Reaction score
7,648
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Well?


Yes
No
Other


Why or why not?
 
Wikipedia has been studied for accurateness and is about as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica. However, it never hurts to cross-check it.
 
It really depends on what is being cited, how well it is sourced on Wiki, and what teh info is being used for.

Typically, I will always check the sources for the Wiki article before I fully believe anything written there.

It's OK for certain general knowledge info, but in a serious debate about a controversial issue, it's usually better to get a better source, though.

But I would never use it for anything serious, such as one of my papers for grad school.
 
I used to be against Wiki. But, now it usually has footnotes and links to its points. I always check its links before I use it or believe it. It has come a long way. It can save you a lot of time the way it has one page for a wide issue.
 
Not really.

Wikipedia's description of the history of the Jamestown Colony is an advertisement for the "socialist" nature of the colony, and even perverts John Smith's "he who will not work shall not eat", carefully omitting the statement by Smith that it's wrong for a man to toil to provide food for others when those others refuse to work for themselves.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Not really.

Wikipedia's description of the history of the Jamestown Colony is an advertisement for the "socialist" nature of the colony, and even perverts John Smith's "he who will not work shall not eat", carefully omitting the statement by Smith that it's wrong for a man to toil to provide food for others when those others refuse to work for themselves.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're looking for a site more like this:

Conservapedia
 
Depends on the article.

Overall, not really, but it is a good starting point.
 
Fiddytree said:
Depends on the article.

Overall, not really, but it is a good starting point.
Click to expand...

Agree --- I'd use it as a dictionary more than a reliable encyclopedia.
 
Many of the articles on Wikipedia are very good, but not all. They're only as good as the people who write and edit them. Some do a good job, but others don't.
 
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I personally like it, because alot of the information is linked to (on the well done topic/subject pages), and further information is only several (at most) clicks away.

That said, I always keep in mind that it is written by people, and people are prone to flaws.

But any other source would have the same against it, really.

It's just that Wikipedia (and other online/electronic sources) are easier to manipulate than paper.
 
Most articles are reliable for casual reading. I wouldn't use it as a formal source, though. It also depends on the article too. Most historical or technical articles are fine. Political articles just beg for edit wars. It really depends on the individual article.
 
People are rather snobbish about wikipedia.However generally speaking its pretty accurate.I hate how its reference on certain tv programmes etc as some kind of joke source.Obvously you can easily find faults but same goes for any encyclopedia ever made.

As any encyclopdia it not meant for deep knowledge on a subject just a general overview.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
Well?


Yes
No
Other


Why or why not?
Click to expand...


I've come across factual errors in it on maybe six occasions.
It's probably to be expected, considering.
On the bright side, they usually get corrected eventually.
 
It's definitely a useful tool. It's vulnerable to vandalism, however. For example, the article on Rodney King had been vandalized to make his name Rodney Queen.
 
Wiki is only as reliable as the individual entries are. Some entries are more reliable than others. Since anyone can edit an entry, there's no guarantee that the most recent edits have any validity because they haven't undergone scrutiny. There's very little control on Wiki, thus there's no guarantee that any individual entry is worthwhile at all.
 
Not Really.. They do not allow ya to use it in college.. So just no. Anybody can edit it and I do go there:2razz:
 
It's great if you use it as it should be used. For simple stuff, it's handy. For more controversial or complicated stuff, it's a great place to start, with a ton of source links to follow for further and better information. For most of us, it's one of the big 2 sources to start researching, the other being a google search, and it's much more useful than a google search.
 
No way, when I can go on their and change stuff it's not reliable.
 
For some general things I think wikipedia is alright. I wouldn't rely on using them as an accurate source regarding controversial topics or anything political. They tend to have a liberal bias and remove conservative editings.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
No way, when I can go on their and change stuff it's not reliable.
Click to expand...

So if I can edit it and add verifiable information [and cite it], it is unreliable outright?

One thing people seem to forget when getting hysterical is that there are millions upon millions [if not more] articles. Just because one CAN edit things to make it outright false, or vandalize it does not mean that one WILL - the rate, IIRC, isn't that terrible. Plus, its not like they were blind to the fact this could happen upon creation - they have means of dealing with vandalism and inaccurate information. IMO, however, they need to step it up in whatever way they can.
 
Wikipedia is good for:
General points of interest/information.
Cited articles can be used for whatever you want - although it's sometimes better to just use the cite itself.

Wikipedia is bad for:
Quoting an uncited article as a sole source of information to prove your point.
 
EgoffTib said:
You realize that they have a large amount of paid employees who monitor changes to articles, right?
Click to expand...
Not to mention all the anal-retentive people with OCD who guard certain articles zealously.
 
I nearly hit the majority with this one.
Other
On most subjects, with casual debates ,IMO, it is sufficient.
On legal debates?....no.
As I am not highly educated, I'd find few errors.. Most of the found errors are probably minor to trivial....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom